Conservative boycott of Twitter can't and won't work, here's why

Conservatives are increasingly vowing to quit Twitter for what they say is censorship of prominent voices. The problem with conservatives or any like-minded group quitting a social media platform and all joining a new one is simple: Echo chambers are absolutely no fun. 
Ever hear of the saying, "... to own the libs?" How about, "... to own the cons." These are prominent sayings on Twitter, and embody much of what the platform is about: embarrassing, or beating or berating the other side. Invariably it's a combination of the three. 
So if conservatives left Twitter to go somewhere else, would liberals follow? Of course not. We would have the social media version of cable news, where everyone goes to their respective platforms to get their own beliefs validated and fears confirmed. 
But no one would be challenged. There would be none of the classic back-and-forth threads between two bullheaded ideologues — and their respective followers.
It would also be the death of the most underrated part of Twitter: witnessing someone or a publication get "ratio'd" — when fiery responses marinated in mockery to an inane tweet far outnumber retweets and likes.
Thursday offered a stunning example when the HuffPost argued that the holiday classic, "Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer," is "seriously problematic" because it promotes sexism, bigotry and bullying. The tweet generated more than 15,000 responses — yet, only 1,600 retweets. 
In a conservative-only social media platform, this all goes away. Because safe spaces are the type of place that are mocked by conservatives for not being able to take a verbal punch or engage in debate. A safe space is defined as a place "intended to be free of bias, conflict, criticism, or potentially threatening actions, ideas, or conversations." Inhabitants are people called "snowflakes," those easily-offended, hyper-emotional folks who can't handle opposing opinions. 

So there would be ample irony if the red team all packed up en masse to some other social media platform launched by, say, a rich prominent conservative that looks and feels like Twitter. But in doing so, they'd be going to their own safe space on the internet. A blizzard of snowflakes, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. 

This isn't to say conservatives don't have a very valid point around the bias that exists in Twitter's banning and suspension policies. Earlier this week, Jesse Kelly, an Iraq War veteran and former GOP congressional candidate, was banned from Twitter for unspecified reasons. When asked for comment, Twitter wouldn't provide one. According to Twitter's "range of enforcement options" page, Kelly should have been provided an explanation from Twitter around what policy he may have violated.

"When we permanently suspend an account, we notify people that they have been suspended for abuse violations, and explain which policy or policies they have violated and which content was in violation," according to Twitter.
The blowback, primarily from conservatives, was swift on Twitter, with many demanding an explanation for the ban. 
Kelly was reinstated later in the week after mounting criticism, but Twitter did not provide an explanation as to why the account was banned in the first place. Some conservatives argued it was done to send a message, to create a chilling effect.
Conservatives are still seething over Twitter's inaction when it comes to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan's tweets comparing Jews to termites and an Antifa-associated group posting Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson's home address and encouraging harassment earlier this month. But what prompted Kelly's page to be reinstated is exactly why conservatives can't leave Twitter. The echo chamber goes both ways. 
Joe Concha (@JoeConchaTV) is a media reporter for The Hill and host of "What America's Thinking."